Some ideas posted here would be a lot more credible with a list of 50 conceivable Senate votes.

Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 06:48 PM by BzaDem

Yes, 50 isn't enough for things that would get cut out of reconciliation (such as mandates and pre-existing condition coverage). But some people post requirements and/or "lines in the sand" that wouldn't even get 50 votes, let alone the 60 that might be required. I sometimes feel that out of frustration with our current political reality some people are trying to act as if we are in an alternate one.

I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

The political climate is really very different now than it was then. In 1994, the Republican Party's approval ratings were not in the toilet. The ghost of Ronald Reagan was much more powerful then. Whereas Clinton followed Bush I, Obama follows one of the least popular politicians in American history, Bush II. Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. Obama was elected with well over 50% of the popular vote. The religious right had not completely taken over the Republican Party then. Now, Republican politicians are generally insane, reflecting their rabid base.

I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

...I'd say the vast majority -- of Americans get their TV over cable, there's now very little the FCC can do about content if the channel doesn't go out over the air.

The 'in the public interest' licensure requirement applies only to broadcast. You'll notice that Fox News is only available on cable -- for a reason. Only the technical quality of their satellite uplink transmitters is under FCC purview.

What you can do without without appropriating any additional money is limited. There are dinks and dunks with things like Medicaid regulations, but to cover presently uninsured bodies in meaningful numbers, you need money. Ridiculous amounts of money, and that means Congress.

...on someone else's idea, that you don't much like, with people you don't much like, on behalf of people who won't notice, and when they finally notice, complain that it's too little, too late, and too expensive.

It's a miracle anyone runs for office, and not surprising that many who do are a little....odd.

13. You're missing the point. I'm saying that a lot of DU-healthcare-proposals WON'T EVEN GET 50 votes.

Single payer is a perfect example. There are not 50 Senators who even want Single Payer, let alone who will vote for it.

A perpetually-subsidized public option (that won't have to break even) is another bill that will not even get 50 votes even if we could put it up for a vote that way.

A public option that has to break even and won't be able to use Medicare rates is about the limit that will get 50 votes. That might be able to squeak by on 50 votes + Biden, or maybe 51 or 52. There are several Democrats who won't even vote for that, but that might not be enough to cause it to fail on a majority vote.

Your description of how easy it is to break a fillibuster is not accurate, and I have pointed this out several times to you. But even if (for the sake of argument) we assume that the filibuster doesn't exist, much of what people on DU think they are going to get won't even pass with a majority.

With a properly executed campaign and a mass movement behind it we could win a single payer system. In fact, with competent and effective leadership from the White House and congressional leaders (and a mass movement behind it) I think it would be easier to win single payer than a public option.

Part of the reason I do not agree is that we have had 60 years and close to 30 Congresses that have not even passed a single payer bill through a single committee. There is a reason for that.

I agree that at a certain point, it may very well be possible to ELECT enough congresspeople to support such a bill. I'm not saying that is impossible. I just think the current slate of congresspersons would not even come close to support single payer (or a perpetually-subsidized public option).

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.